There might be Russian collusion after all.

[Tekate]

Well - I think we need a lot more RIGHT WINGER news channels. Sinclair is doing it's best, of course they are being challenged

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/08/media/sinclair-buys-tribune-media/index.html

The left wingers don't wanna hear anything negative about the Dem. party. All they do is to trash Trump everyday. There are too many left winger media stations. MSNBC, ABC,CBS, NBC,CNN...vs 1 FOX NEWS.

 

[sarahb]

And how do you all imagine the Clintons went from nearly broke (Hillarys words) to amassing well over a 100 million dollars since they left the White House? What was the asset that produced such a stunning income flow and supported a lavish lifestyle in such a short amount of time? Neither one worked in the private sector nor owned anything (company etc). Lets not be naive here. The one & only highly marketable asset they had was access & influence. An ex-President & a Secretary of State....

Think about that as you follow the money in the Uranium One story.

 

[Matata]

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/17/49010...-on-how-politicians-climb-out-of-middle-class
"Forbes estimates of their wealth range at $50 million; the Clintons got there through hard work, while also benefiting from their fame and their friendships.

What they seem not to have done, contrary to Internet theories, is break any laws.

"The Clintons have always been very careful to walk about two inches inside the line," said Michael Johnston, a professor emeritus at Colgate University who is researching public perceptions of legal and illegal corruption."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danale...n-after-leaving-the-white-house/#18f1ee1b2ae3

 

[redwood66]

There is no direct correlation that this was quid pro quo, People WANT that to be because they don't like the Clintons, for some unfathomable reasons to me they consistently and constantly attribute nefarious actions to these people to the point where it is ridiculous. Take the Clinton Foundation, it's a good organization and has done a lot of great things, BUT the right doesn't EVER seem to get it. They see what isn't there because of pre-judgement of the Clintons. It's a useless exercise for us to chat about this because what has been written and said over 40 years is just ingrained in people's minds and facts just don't work.

It is something that we will never agree on as far as the benevolence of the Clintons. But that is ok and we don't have to agree.

Edit (since I am a serial editor you know) Have a wonderful evening and I think it is time for a drink. LOL

 

[Dancing Fire]

It is something that we will never agree on as far as the benevolence of the Clintons. But that is ok and we don't have to agree.

Edit (since I am a serial editor you know) Have a wonderful evening and I think it is time for a drink. LOL

Yup, Let's have a toast to corruptions!...

 

[t-c]

And how do you all imagine the Clintons went from nearly broke (Hillarys words) to amassing well over a 100 million dollars since they left the White House? What was the asset that produced such a stunning income flow and supported a lavish lifestyle in such a short amount of time? Neither one worked in the private sector nor owned anything (company etc). Lets not be naive here. The one & only highly marketable asset they had was access & influence. An ex-President & a Secretary of State....

Think about that as you follow the money in the Uranium One story.

Jesus, this shit again? How many times must it be said that the decision to sell the Uranium was not just the United States’ but also Canada’s (it was a Canadian-based company). It was also not a decision Clinton made — it was a committee. And if you actually read the article posted by @Dancing Fire (and I am skeptical he read it himself) you will see that it actually assails the FBI for not disclosing the investigation to the committee members, senators, and even fellow FBI, before the deal was approved. See a quote from the article below.

The lack of fanfare left many key players in Washington with no inkling that a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme with serious national security implications had been uncovered.

On Dec. 15, 2015, the Justice Department put out a release stating that Mikerin, “a former Russian official residing in Maryland was sentenced today to 48 months in prison” and ordered to forfeit more than $2.1 million.

Ronald Hosko, who served as the assistant FBI director in charge of criminal cases when the investigation was underway, told The Hill he did not recall ever being briefed about Mikerin’s case by the counterintelligence side of the bureau despite the criminal charges that were being lodged.

“I had no idea this case was being conducted,” a surprised Hosko said in an interview.

Likewise, major congressional figures were also kept in the dark.

Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the time the FBI probe was being conducted, told The Hill that he had never been told anything about the Russian nuclear corruption case even though many fellow lawmakers had serious concerns about the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal.

“Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by U.S. regulators and engage appropriate congressional committees has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them,” he said. “The Russian efforts to manipulate our American political enterprise is breathtaking.”

And as for how the Clintons made their money, Bill Clinton signed a $15 Million book deal in 2001 (largest ever for a non-fiction at the time) with a $10M advance. And Hillary signed an $8M book deal on her own with a $4M advance. I’ll even reference a site you probably read (http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/bro...ook-deals-exiting-white-house/article/2549509) And I’m sure you’re one of the people who have criticized the fact that both Bill and Hillary Clinton command hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees (but you seem to fail to recall this fact when making innuendos about “how the made their money”). So the asset that produced that income flow is them having lead interesting lives. As an aside, have you ever questioned why Donald Trump Jr commands $100K+ in speaking fees when he’s done nothing except be an errand boy for his father?

And finally, I return to The Hill piece and point out, once again, that there was a completed investigation by the FBI and no charges were brought on anybody except the Russian, Mikerin. So, again, all your “facts” (the collective you which include DancingFire and redwood) are conspiracy theories.

 

[Tekate]

How do I think they went from in debt to wealthy? same way all ex presidents get that way, speeches.

https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-3368127

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/17/49010...-on-how-politicians-climb-out-of-middle-class

What is wrong with making money the American way? getting paid for what skills you have?

Net worth of presidents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_net_worth

They wrote books:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Books_by_Bill_Clinton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Hillary_Clinton

Why do you think there is something nefarious about how the Clintons made their money after Mr Clinton's tenure in the White House? Why when there are articles about stating how they made their money you would rather believe some Russian assistance? (as we all know Putin hates Clinton).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...use-in-debt-wait-what/?utm_term=.b69e2a564743

The above is very resourceful.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/index.html

I'd say the Clinton's were paid a lot to speak. Why is that WRONG?

And how do you all imagine the Clintons went from nearly broke (Hillarys words) to amassing well over a 100 million dollars since they left the White House? What was the asset that produced such a stunning income flow and supported a lavish lifestyle in such a short amount of time? Neither one worked in the private sector nor owned anything (company etc). Lets not be naive here. The one & only highly marketable asset they had was access & influence. An ex-President & a Secretary of State....

Think about that as you follow the money in the Uranium One story.

 

[Tekate]

We have to go thru this shit again, because people hate the Clinton's. They believe they are nefarious through half truths, lies, and the dislike that Bill was a cheater (although our cheater in office get's a bye for some dang reason). People believe the Clinton's are bad. They believe that through some convoluted story(ies) about Vince Foster. They believe Pizzagate. They believe lies, because they don't like them. They don't read all the information available. It's just sad.

Jesus, this shit again? How many times must it be said that the decision to sell the Uranium was not just the United States’ but also Canada’s (it was a Canadian-based company). It was also not a decision Clinton made — it was a committee. And if you actually read the article posted by @Dancing Fire (and I am skeptical he read it himself) you will see that it actually assails the FBI for not disclosing the investigation to the committee members, senators, and even fellow FBI, before the deal was approved. See a quote from the article below.



And as for how the Clintons made their money, Bill Clinton signed a $15 Million book deal in 2001 (largest ever for a non-fiction at the time) with a $10M advance. And Hillary signed an $8M book deal on her own with a $4M advance. I’ll even reference a site you probably read (http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/bro...ook-deals-exiting-white-house/article/2549509) And I’m sure you’re one of the people who have criticized the fact that both Bill and Hillary Clinton command hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees (but you seem to fail to recall this fact when making innuendos about “how the made their money”). So the asset that produced that income flow is them having lead interesting lives. As an aside, have you ever questioned why Donald Trump Jr commands $100K+ in speaking fees when he’s done nothing except be an errand boy for his father?

And finally, I return to The Hill piece and point out, once again, that there was a completed investigation by the FBI and no charges were brought on anybody except the Russian, Mikerin. So, again, all your “facts” (the collective you which include DancingFire and redwood) are conspiracy theories.

 

[Tekate]

Why won't you believe the Clinton's do good things with their Foundation? Red, I'm very tired of people believing BS. You are a nice lady as I am. But in the era of Trump lies I'm calling call out every untruth I read. Hope the drink was good, I had a great martini by my husband Friday nite. Love them, they are lethal

It is something that we will never agree on as far as the benevolence of the Clintons. But that is ok and we don't have to agree.

Edit (since I am a serial editor you know) Have a wonderful evening and I think it is time for a drink. LOL

 

[Tekate]

Charity Navigator Rating of the Clinton Foundation:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

One cannot get a lot better than this rating.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/trump-scam-charity/
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/...chdog-compares-Clinton-Trump-foundations.html

 

[Calliecake]

Tekate, Most Trump supporters only watch Fox News. The could careless about facts or truth.

 

[Maria D]

...snip... (and I am skeptical he read it himself)..snip...So, again, all your “facts” (the collective you which include DancingFire and redwood) are conspiracy theories.

Oh t-c, of course DF didn't read it! He found a headline that he liked. I responded right off that I was happy to discuss the article (and another I found) and awaited with bated breath to begin an intelligent discussion with him. My disappointment is so great, as you can imagine. I really thought that this one time, since he made the post himself, that he would be yearning to enlighten us all with his fact-supported theories. hahahahahahahaha,

 

[Tekate]

The idea that the Clinton's were doing a quid pro quo? well one thing for sure, our government is scum, the FBI runs amok. If Cllinton had done ANYTHING illegal these 'Americans' would have had her locked up and probably silenced for life. Despicable FBI.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-acted-as-russian-spy-moved-closer-to-hillary

Figliuzzi supervised the post-arrest declassification and release of records from a 10-year operation that unmasked a major Russian spy ring in 2010. It was one of the most important U.S. counterintelligence victories against Russia in history, and famous for nabbing the glamorous spy-turned-model Anna Chapman.

While Chapman dominated the headlines surrounding that spy ring, another Russian woman posing as a mundane New Jersey accountant named Cynthia Murphy was closing in on accessing Secretary Clinton’s department, according to records and interviews.

For most of the 10 years, the ring of Russian spies that included Chapman and Murray acted as sleepers, spending a “great deal of time collecting information and passing it on” to their handlers inside Russia’s SVR spy agency, FBI records state.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Humm, getting interesting!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...c-lobbyist-tony-podestas-russia-dealings.html

 

[redwood66]

Seems it is swampy all around in DC. Of course some of us knew that already.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/25/team-clinton-borrows-don-jr-s-russia-defense.html

 

[Dancing Fire]

Seems it is swampy all around in DC. Of course some of us knew that already.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/25/team-clinton-borrows-don-jr-s-russia-defense.html

No prove yet!.. for now it is only FAKE news. Funny how the Dems. kept on pushing for an investigation into Russian collusion but now it could come back and bite them in their ASS!.... However, don't count on Mueller for being impartial. IMO, he'll side with the Clintons towards the end.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I'll receive 20 like for this link...
http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/clintons-collusion-who-will-investigate-the-new-russia-scandal/

 

[Tekate]

Doesn't it seem ODD that this 'whatever' happened in 2010 and no one mentioned all this 'collusion'.. I mean they were allowed to do it. It seems to me that this is smoke and mirrors to deflect Trumps mess.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...he-latest-allegations/?utm_term=.7beb21daa5a6

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ou-need-know-about-hillary-clinton-and-urani/

https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

http://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-clintons-russia-trump-688592

http://www.businessinsider.com/devin-nunes-clintons-probe-us-russia-uranium-deal-2017-10

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/19/newsweek-fails-fact-check-on-clinton-foundation-and-russia/
(so the Clinton's were paid for a speech? so what). Why 7 years later is this covfefe ANYTHING?

http://checkyourfact.com/2017/10/23/fact-check-has-the-uranium-one-controversy-been-debunked/
thisis about as supportive of the rights rants and even they admit it has been checked and rechecked and written about for years.

Innuendo, lies, more lies and spin. Let's stick to the facts.

Seems it is swampy all around in DC. Of course some of us knew that already.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/25/team-clinton-borrows-don-jr-s-russia-defense.html

 

[Tekate]

New scandal? 2010 is recent? I mean it was approved. It's not new, only thing new is the republicans are trying to use subterfuge and stirring up their 'base' with hacked, old fake news.

I'll receive 20 like for this link...
http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/clintons-collusion-who-will-investigate-the-new-russia-scandal/

 

[redwood66]

Doesn't it seem ODD that this 'whatever' happened in 2010 and no one mentioned all this 'collusion'.. I mean they were allowed to do it. It seems to me that this is smoke and mirrors to deflect Trumps mess.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...he-latest-allegations/?utm_term=.7beb21daa5a6

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ou-need-know-about-hillary-clinton-and-urani/

https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

http://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-clintons-russia-trump-688592

http://www.businessinsider.com/devin-nunes-clintons-probe-us-russia-uranium-deal-2017-10

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/19/newsweek-fails-fact-check-on-clinton-foundation-and-russia/
(so the Clinton's were paid for a speech? so what). Why 7 years later is this covfefe ANYTHING?

http://checkyourfact.com/2017/10/23/fact-check-has-the-uranium-one-controversy-been-debunked/
thisis about as supportive of the rights rants and even they admit it has been checked and rechecked and written about for years.

Innuendo, lies, more lies and spin. Let's stick to the facts.

Oh my dear. No one knew what they were doing. Not even Congress. Why lie about whether you funded the dossier for so long? DC stinks and they are all in the big swamp.

 

[Tekate]

They didn't fund the dossier, they paid for opposition research, which the Free Beacon did before Trump got the nomination. Since you may not be able to read the WaPo I copied this for you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...he-latest-allegations/?utm_term=.74638a64a562

As a service to readers bound to be confused by an increasingly complex story, here’s a brief guide to the latest developments in the tangled allegations involving Russia, President Trump and Hillary Clinton.

The Dossier
Background: The “dossier” is a collection of 17 memos concerning President Trump and Russia written by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, between June 20 and Dec. 13, 2016. Steele produced his memos under a contract with Fusion GPS, a strategic intelligence firm run by former journalists.

The memos are written as raw intelligence, based on interviews Steele had with unidentified Russian sources (identified, for instance, as “Kremlin insider”), some of whom he paid for information. Raw intelligence is essentially high-grade gossip, without the expectation it would be made public unless it is further verified.

The memos, among other things, allege the Russian government had been seeking to split the Western alliance by cultivating and supporting Trump and also gathering compromising information — “kompromat” — on him in an effort to blackmail him. The memos, among other allegations, claim the Russian government fed the Trump campaign “valuable intelligence” on Clinton.

Why It’s Important: The dossier mirrors a separate conclusion by U.S. intelligence agencies that the Russian government intervened in the U.S. election in an effort to bolster Trump and harm Clinton, such as through hacking the Democratic National Committee and distributing materials to WikiLeaks to publish at key moments. As the official declassified report stated:

“We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin intensely disliked Clinton because he was convinced that when she was secretary of state she had promoted anti-Putin, pro-democracy efforts in his country. The FBI considered the information gathered by Steele to be of sufficient importance that it considered paying him for his research, although it later dropped the idea.

What’s New: The DNC and Clinton campaign were revealed as the “Democratic donors” who paid Fusion GPS for Steele’s research. (Technically, Perkins Coie, the law firm of Marc Elias, an attorney representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, funded the research.)

Separately, a “Republican donor” who had earlier hired Fusion GPS for information on Trump was revealed to be the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website. But that earlier effort is unrelated to the Democratic-funded research that yielded the dossier, as Steele was hired by Fusion GPS after work for the Free Beacon had ended.

We should note that, in another assignment, Fusion had been hired by a U.S. law firm in early 2014 to assist on the defense against a civil action filed by the U.S. government alleging fraud by Prevezon Holdings. Prevezon is owned by Denis Katsyv, the son of a senior Russian government official.

Why is that relevant? Natalia Veselnitskaya, who was also working for the law firm on the Prevezon case, met with Trump campaign officials at the Trump Tower in June 2016, including Donald Trump Jr., campaign manager Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, the husband of Ivanka Trump. Donald Trump Jr. agreed to meet with Veselnitskaya after an intermediary promised dirt on Clinton. She arrived with a memo containing talking points that had been previously shared by Yuri Chaika, Russia’s prosecutor general who is known as a master of kompromat.

What’s controversial: The Trump White House has tried to use the connection between the dossier and Clinton to claim that this shows that rather than Trump colluding with Russia, Clinton colluded with Russia. (The theory appears to be that because Steele was getting information from Russian officials in part with funds provided by the Clinton campaign, the Russians were helping Clinton.)

But that ignores the fact that DNC emails — as well as the email account of the Clinton campaign chairman — were hacked and then published by WikiLeaks as part of the pro-Trump Russian operation identified by U.S. intelligence agencies. (Wikileaks denies it received the material from Russia.) Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reported that a prominent Trump donor and the chief executive of a data-analytics firm working for Trump’s presidential campaign in August 2016 discussed how to better organize the Clinton-related emails being released by Wikileaks in order to leverage their impact.

Steele started producing his memos in June 2016, about the same time that intelligence agencies began investigating possible ties between Russia and people close to Trump. The connection between Steele’s research and official government investigations is murky, but for some Republicans it raises questions about whether the official probe begun in the Obama administration was influenced by information gathered by someone being paid by Democrats.

CNN, for instance, reported that the FBI used information in the Steele memos to obtain approval from the secret court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor the communications of Carter Page, who Trump had said was a key adviser on national security issues. Presumably, the FBI had verified the information before it could cite it in court. Steele had quoted an “ethnic Russian close associate” of Trump as saying Page was an intermediary in “a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation” between the Trump campaign and the Russian leadership. Page has adamantly denied any wrongdoing.

Steele, during the campaign, at Fusion’s direction also briefed reporters from some U.S. news organizations, including The Washington Post, on his findings, according to court filings. Only one publication, Mother Jones, published information based on the briefing before the election.

The Uranium deal
Background: In 2010, Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency, acquired a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian-based company that had mining licenses for about 20 percent of U.S. uranium extraction capacity. The agreement was approved by the Obama administration when Clinton was secretary of state.

Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier and a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation, had sold a company, UrAsia, to Uranium One in 2007. Individuals related to Uranium One and UrAsia, including Giustra, donated to the Clinton Foundation, totaling about $145 million. Meanwhile, in 2010, Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Russian bank to give a speech at a conference in Moscow.

Trump, during the campaign, tossed all of these separate facts together to falsely claim that Clinton “gave 20 percent of our uranium — gave Russia for a big payment.” But numerous fact checks have found no evidence for this claim. The original suggestion of wrongdoing was first raised in a book underwritten by an organization headed by Stephen K. Bannon, a key adviser to Trump.

Why It’s Important: Whenever news about the Russia investigation heats up, the Trump White House cites the uranium deal in an effort to muddy the waters and suggest that Russia had gained something from Clinton in exchange for money. Trump himself has claimed the case is “Watergate, modern age.”

But there is no evidence Clinton even was informed about this deal. The Treasury Department was the key agency that headed the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States which approved the investment; Clinton did not participate in the CFIUS decision. The deal was also approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ultimately, only the president could have blocked or suspended the arrangement.

Moreover, no uranium produced at U.S. mines may be exported, except for some uranium yellowcake which is extracted and processed in Canada before being returned to the United States for use in nuclear power plants.

What’s New: The Hill newspaper on Oct. 22 reported the FBI had gathered evidence at the time of the sale that a Russian Rosatom official had conducted a massive bribery scheme, compromising an American trucking company that shipped uranium for Russia. The official eventually was convicted in 2015, but Republicans have said the case should have raised alarms about the Rosatom investment in Uranium One and possibly blocked the deal. But there is no evidence that U.S. officials weighing the transaction knew about the FBI investigation.

The reporting prompted House Republicans to announce they would launch an investigation. With the apparent urging of President Trump, the Justice Department gave a former FBI informant in the case approval to testify before Congress. The informant’s lawyer claimed he would discuss his work “uncovering the Russian nuclear bribery case and the efforts he witnessed by Moscow to gain influence with [former president Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] in hopes of winning favorable uranium decisions from the Obama administration.”

What’s controversial: Any suggestion that Russian money was directed to influence Clinton’s decisions would be explosive. But the fatal flaw in this allegation is Hillary Clinton, by all accounts, did not participate in any discussions regarding the Uranium One sale which — as we noted — does not actually result in the removal of uranium from the United States.

Oh my dear. No one knew what they were doing. Not even Congress. Why lie about whether you funded the dossier for so long? DC stinks and they are all in the big swamp.

 

[Tekate]

One has to read and read and research and read again. Why the heck is Clinton's name even in this? Putin by all accounts could NOT stand the Clinton's especially Mrs Clinton, so they set this up? no. But one thing I will give Putin and his crew of evil, they know how to send out fake news and continually disrupt OUR country. I don't even think Trump himself colluded with the Russian government, I'd need to read some real proof, not because I like Trump but because Trump's ego is huge and he likes to be the 'big' man on campus. Maybe people surrounding him did, dunno.. Yes Washington is a swamp, but we cannot guarantee rights for all as can be witnessed by the nomination of the racist candidate Ray Moore from Alabama.

Oh my dear. No one knew what they were doing. Not even Congress. Why lie about whether you funded the dossier for so long? DC stinks and they are all in the big swamp.

 

[Arkteia]

We have to go thru this shit again, because people hate the Clinton's. They believe they are nefarious through half truths, lies, and the dislike that Bill was a cheater (although our cheater in office get's a bye for some dang reason). People believe the Clinton's are bad. They believe that through some convoluted story(ies) about Vince Foster. They believe Pizzagate. They believe lies, because they don't like them. They don't read all the information available. It's just sad.

The Clintons are the past perfect time. However, different groups dislike them for different things. I remember how when they were in the WH, many newspapers hinted at HRC and Stephanopoulos not seeing eye-to-eye, and then GS left the WH. Ironically, this is what my husband always remembered. He likes Stephanopoulos. Then there was that book, "Primary Colors", and a movie, does anyone remember what it said about Clintons? Then there was Monica scandal. Perhaps some of those kids who grew up at that time and are voting now still remember all these idiotic details of Starr committee? Then Bill pardoned Rich on his last day of Presidency. It, too, got remembered.

I personally supported Hillary Clinton - actively - both times. There was only one thing I held against her - voting for Iraq invasion. But in a way, I thought she would be an average, mainstream President, specifically for this reason. She goes with the flow.

But I think our politicians, when they choose their next leader, have to look at what can prevent a person from winning the victory. Why can a person who, in general, deserves, be not elected. It makes zero sense to fight over who voted for whom. It makes no sense to say that for some reason, Clintons are disliked. One has to see why to learn for the future.

It makes no sense to ridicule or insult Trump's electorate. Because honestly, they are laughing, not us. But it has to be used as a learning curve.